Bittersweet Candy Bowl Forums

PixelatedKhan, on 14 January 2013 - 03:14 AM, said:

Actually, in most civilized countries - both east and west - you're not allowed to carry knives (double edged and/or above a certain blade size) in public places, either. You're allowed to own them, of course, but if you take your steak knife to the park with you, the police might stop you and confiscate / fine / arrest you (depending on local laws).

#thinkbeforeyouspeak

This post has been edited by Migrant: 14 January 2013 - 12:03 PM

Im not really in support of a complete ban on guns, i don't really think it would actually do that much. illegal sales cant really be stopped and many people wouldn't abide by such a law. i mean i know people who say there's no way in hell they'll give up their guns. though i do think there should be some strong regulations; background checks and such. an interesting piece of legislation I've heard about is a increase in ammunition regulations. how do you think something like that would go down?
this is of course assuming congress can actually do something and get a bill such as this passed.

Hamilton was actually very much against slavery (indeed, he proposed freeing and arming blacks to fight against the British during the Revolutionary war, fought for a ban on the import of slaves, and criticized people for asking for slavery for themselves while simultaneously having slaves) and Hitler employed mass slave labor during World War II.

It was a nice attempt at being clever though.

Hitler didn't support every German's right to own slaves

SuitCase, on 16 January 2013 - 01:11 PM, said:

Yeah, he wanted them all to himself.

That bastard.

Migrant, on 14 January 2013 - 12:00 PM, said:

Really? Think before i speak? Ive carried a cold steel Rajah 2 (14 inches long) for 3 years to every single place I go. This is including 16 states north and south and two different countries (mexico and germany) and have never been bothered about it. If I did the same thing with say my Cz-83 id have every cop from here to oklahoma city on my ass.

It was probably not showing much and you didn't get caught. But I'm sure in Germany carrying knives in public places is forbidden. Don't know about the USA, and in Mexico... well fuck, even if it is illegal there, most of the time I don't think people would care.

Also, why do you carry a machete around with you? You some kind of crazy psycho?

Migrant, on 23 January 2013 - 06:56 AM, said:

First, i must say thanks for not replying in a mean way(totally serious right now). Its a folder, not a machete. But this is a thread about guns, not knives. Im sorry for taking it off track. And no, im not a crazy psycho, just prepared

PixelatedKhan, on 14 January 2013 - 03:14 AM, said:

It happened in Henan province. We talked more about School Safety and Mental Disorder, of cause, and the imporper announcement and action made by local government. (The actual number was 23.)
--To your disappointment, we really do Knife Control. Knives longer than 22cm (or sharp pointed ones longer than 16cm) are not available without ID cards. Actually, the gun control in China hadn't done yet until 1960s.
It is almost impossible to own/get a gun or a bullet here. (Of cause, you can make a gun by yourself (if you are lucky enough to work in poorly managed nation-owned steel factory, although there is no need), but the supply of bullets is still a problem unless you are a perfect thief.)

This post has been edited by HenryOnline: 29 May 2013 - 10:57 PM

Fact: In America the Baseball is more responsible for kills than guns.
Fact: Also places with gun control also have some of the highest crime rates.
FACT: Malpractice kills over 30x as many people as guns. And doctor's aren't controlled.

This post has been edited by TheRealSomeone akaSomeone: 31 May 2013 - 02:17 AM

Fact: Your first fact was originally written as "baseball bats" and it is utter bullshit snopes.com: Gun Deaths vs. Baseball Bat Deaths

Fact: Being a doctor comes with many laws and regulations which you must follow to maintain your license, and it can be revoked for breaking these laws, also they provide a necessary service, and are only human, thus are capable of mistakes.

Your middle fact has already been hotly debated above so I'm not going to bother going over it again, but TL;DR is that it's a hell of a lot more complex than something which can be reduced to a simple "fact" statement

The website you used is .com which means it a company. Now if you can show me a REAL creditable website I will be happy to listen.
Laws and regulations are there, But malpractice is still the #1 killer in America.

TheRealSomeone akaSomeone, on 31 May 2013 - 02:30 AM, said:

Alright, motherfucker. You've said some pretty stupid shit here and I'd like to clean up the mess.

FOR STARTERS: you're seriously going to bitch at him using a .com despite the fact you didn't use a .anything as proof for your claim? Look, you must have just skipped the 3 prior pages of content, because if you had read them, you'd have realized how important proof actually is in this discussion. How about some credible sources from you, Mr.PhD? Oh, by the way, he was assuming you got your statistics from snopes, because snopes is a joke news site.

Motherfucking second: MALPRACTICE IS NOT THE NUMBER ONE KILLER IN THE UNITED STATES. I can't say that with 100% certainty, but I don't really care, because as far this discussion is concerned, I am more believable than you are at this point. Hey! It is even a magical .gov, so even by YOUR logic I am more believable. Unless you're one of those subjective knowledge types... Ew. Oh, by the way, I'm pretty sure Cancer is the second largest killer, than I think it is like, auto accidents and suicide, but I'm less confident about those last two. But yeah, malpractice isn't that high.

Third, and this comes back to my two prior points, you need some statistical proof. The moral and subjective aspects have been argued to death, but when all is said and done, few people have inserted anything even close to being considered objective, or at least trustworthy. And I can understand inserting an opinion, I get that, but don't do it if you're going to make things up in the middle of it for no apparent reason.

This post has been edited by Meowth: 31 May 2013 - 04:23 AM

TheRealSomeone akaSomeone, on 31 May 2013 - 02:30 AM, said:

Medical error: 96,000 - 44,000 deaths per year
How many deaths are due to medical er... [Eff Clin Pract. 2000 Nov-Dec] - PubMed - NCBI

Firearm deaths: ~11,000 per year out of 16,000 homicides
FASTSTATS - Homicide

In 2010 alone, ~30,000 firearm deaths by suicide (19,000), homicide (11,000), accident (600)
FIREARMS TUTORIAL

Baseball deaths never even reach triple digits
Project MUSE - "I Guess I Forgot to Duck": On-Field Player Fatalities in the Minor Leagues

Actual leading causes of death: #1 heart disease (~600,000), #2 Cancer (~570,000)
FASTSTATS - Leading Causes of Death

According to the Bureau of Justice(Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) ), gun violence in the US has been declining since 1993. We're at an all time low. The 1994 assault weapons ban expired in 2004. If the ban was the reason that gun violence had declined, then it's I think it's reasonable to assume that gun violence should have gone back up after it expired. But gun violence has continued to decline. The media makes guns out to be a bad thing. They make it seem like gun violence is on the rise. But we're at the lowest point we've been at in years. Why did gun violence continue to decline in the years after 2004 if there was no gun ban? Maybe the ban encouraged good behavior in the US, leading to a continuation of the decline? If that's the reason, maybe to appease both parties, we should be advocating a temporary gun ban, instead of a permanent one.

the assault weapons ban is about preventing freak events where some guy goes into a room and shoots 20 people in a minute. it isn't expected to affect any statistic but the amount of people killed in mass shootings

SuitCase, on 31 May 2013 - 03:23 PM, said:

So then the bill had no effect on the declining gun violence rate. It declined on it's own.

It's also kind of odd that the Internet was created and commercialized around the same time that gun violence began to decline in the US. It may just be a coincidence, but maybe the fact that the Internet has turned some people into recluses has also reduced gun violence. Using that logic, violent addicting video games should actually have the opposite effect on gun violence. Instead of increasing violence, like many think, they should almost be decreasing violence.

This post has been edited by Yxela007: 31 May 2013 - 08:20 PM

So many of the common assumptions about violent TV and games could be backwards.

This post has been edited by Yxela007: 31 May 2013 - 08:21 PM

I support gun control.
It took us over 20 years to finish it.
I'm sure the crime rate in those poor areas here can be tens of times more without it, just check where I live in and what is happening.

The only problem is, there are so many ways to kill a person without a bought gun.
1. 220v A.C. is enough to kill. (A wire, that's enough.)
2. Cut the gas line, then light it. (Boo_ooooooom!!)
3. A manufacturing worker can DIY a gun. (That's true. But how to get bullets?)
4. Use strong acid or alkali. (To kill one is a difficult thing, but to destroy someone.)
5. It is easy to make ANFO at home, --a kind of explosive.
6. Just use a knife. (Needn't more explanation.)
7. Steal a gun from the Police or Army. (That's what Zhou Kehua did.)
8. Use poison. (Sad news from Fudan.)

Titanium Dragon, on 18 January 2013 - 01:18 PM, said:

Not really. Actually he was considered as a kind and clever person before the war. (Even only three days before the war. Jew made up an important part of his supporters (and later he failed their hope).) ...he was/is very strange...
The lesson we learnt is:
1. Never start a world war. The failure and the terrible disaster will wash away all the contribution you did.
2. Never close the congress or court. Or they can do nothing if you are going mad.
3. ...support a businessman or a normal senator or a common person next time... An artist killed 70 million, a poet killed 45 million later.

This post has been edited by HenryOnline: 02 June 2013 - 07:11 AM

I just...
Man, I don't even know what you are trying to say here. Just know this: Hitler knew everything he was doing. Read a summary or even a Wikipedia article about Mein Kampf.
Maybe a little post WW1 German history while you're at it to see why someone like Hitler got into power. Or hell for that matter look up current Greek politics

hitler was human too, gauiz

Whew, you sure picked a thorny subject to bring up, you know?

Normally, I don't get into conversations like this, simply because forums can be rife with people ready to browbeat you for your opinion, but BCB's forum has proven to be a lot... What's the word? A lot lighter, I guess? A lot lighter on people who express their opinions, so I thought I'd give it a shot.

There was a quote I had seen somewhere, but I can't rediscover it. However, in my search, I did find a lot of quotes that I thought fit the argument here. If you don't feel like reading them, just skip to the bottom and I'll get to my point there.

"As the Founding Fathers knew well, a government that does not trust its honest, law-abiding, taxpaying citizens with the means of self-defense is not itself worthy of trust. Laws disarming honest citizens proclaim that the government is the master, not the servant, of the people." --Jeff Snyder

"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes." -- Cesare Beccaria, as quoted by Thomas Jefferson's Commonplace book

"...quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est." [...a sword never kills anybody; it's a tool in the killer's hand.] -- (Lucius Annaeus) Seneca "the Younger" (ca. 4 BC-65 AD)



So, my point. I am fully aware of the several shootings that have gone on in the US, and I understand that there are similar cases worldwide. I'm not saying that guns should be sold without a care, because that's how things have worked until now, and that system is beginning to show its age. However, any strict laws on firearms that could potentially have an effect on gun violence would make things more dangerous for the common person than it would be worth.

I can't speak for everyone, but I believe that any strict regulation would be detrimental. The people who would be the victims, the people with no intention to go on a shooting spree, would be disarmed or more lightly armed, and the people who are bound and determined to go on a shooting spree would be just as capable of finding illegal weapons as they are legal ones. We might catch more of the people, and we MIGHT stop more people before they go to the next school. But we WILL have more violence as the fear of having a weapon turned back on you decreases, as the laws get tighter, and to me, those Mights do not outweigh the solid fact.

My last quote says that it isn't the weapon that causes the violence, it's the people with them. Weapons, be they swords, spears or guns, are nothing more than tools. I guess my summary is, don't take the tools away from the people, take away the people who will mis-use the tools.

Sleepy cookie probably rambled. Sorry.

ban him

Er... Why began to talk so much about that shorty? This topic is about Gun Control, not WW2.

--Why there is only one choice in the poll...

Because we're all scrubs who don't fully understand the complex socio-economic policies that underly proper gun control.

Ace, on 02 June 2013 - 07:37 AM, said:

What he said.

@Ace: Man, who did you talk to?

HenryOnline, on 02 June 2013 - 07:15 AM, said:

Because they knew this thread would boil down to two sides with barley educated and badly preconceived notions essentially just hitting each other with bags full of dildos.

Lanpanic, on 02 June 2013 - 01:13 PM, said:

Speak formal English, please. Or the translator can not work properly.
-- And, are you sure you knew who "the shorty" here was?

This post has been edited by HenryOnline: 10 June 2013 - 06:33 AM

If there is only one option in the poll, I doubt whether the poll is meaningful or not.

If you seriously want to kill someone out of the blue, odds are you'll find a way (and the concept is pretty similar for terrorism I guess). What a government can do is try to teach you the value of life through education, and make it harder for you to succeed in case you made up your mind about it, also limiting the potential damage you can cause.
Despite all theories and experts I think we are probably still far from the perfect educational system anywhere in the world, but I hope we keep trying. Gun control seems to me a viable mean to help pursue the second goal.

The constitution on baring arms was created because of the british. If british soldiers literally came to your door and said that needed to stay there you were forced out of your home and they took everything you had if you liked it or not. You could not defend your self. Hence why if police come to your door they can not enter without just cause and a search warrant. The gun law was allowed because they wanted to give every individual the right to protect themselves. Now I know I am most likely going to offend a few people by what Im about to say. You have whites and you have trailer trash or crackers. You have blacks and you have niggers. You have people who are good and bad just like people who follow gun related rules and people who don't. It's just like when you were in school and you had one trouble maker. If the teacher didn't know who did it then the teacher punished the whole class because that student wouldn't say he or she did it. I own guns however, I was raised around cops who taught me that guns are only for defense. The only time you use a gun is when someone is going to seriously harm or kill you and the only way you have the right to hold one in defense is if you are willing to kill that person in defense. If you don't they will come after you for that gone and they will turn the gun on you instead. Never threaten with a gun because you will be the one who gets hurt. Just because a few people decide to shoot people doesn't give them the right to take away our constitutional right. Maybe a few people need to be parents and sit down with their kids and explain gun control to them. Then we wouldn't have people on the news like this. Why not start with teaching parents to be parents before breaking down the constitution that this country was founded on?